The cost of war – to the exchequer and to women

You report (26 September) that the bill for the six months of war in Libya could reach £1.75bn. You do not mention the 10-year Afghanistan war, which has cost many times as much – on previous estimates, up to 100 times as much. In other respects, the two wars cannot be compared. There are important British interests in Libya, but none in Afghanistan. We have lost 382 killed and many more seriously wounded in Afghanistan, but none in Libya. I had deep misgivings about our intervention in Libya, but now believe we prevented an act of genocide. History will tell, but right now it looks as if we have given the Libyans what they wanted, an opportunity to build a new and better Libya.

But why are we still fighting in Afghanistan? The government answer, on the MoD website, is: "Britain's own security is at risk if we again allow Afghanistan to become a safe haven for terrorists." It is no longer credible, if it ever was, that fighting a war in Afghanistan will reduce the threat to our security. The fact is we went into Afghanistan to help the US deal with Osama bin Laden. The Americans have dealt with Bin Laden. Are we to stay now until they decide to leave? Does anyone suppose that the US will, or should, decide its date of departure with any consideration for us?Oliver MilesOxford

• You highlight (17 September) the non-traditional roles played by women in the Libyan revolution. As in Egypt and Tunisia, women have been at the vanguard. Writing, fighting and volunteering, they have fed the revolution and nursed its wounds. But is gender equality taking root? The interim constitution codifies their exclusion, referring to the council member, "his wife or his sons". Realising women's rights is a barometer of progress and a way for future leaders to distinguish themselves from prior repressive regimes. In particular, they must ensure that sexual violence and coercion no longer inhibit women's participation in public life. Women must be vocal and visible in this discussion of their nation's future. Margot WallströmUN special representative for sexual violence in conflict

• In 1941 my father was fully employed in the Royal Navy, out in the Atlantic on a destroyer, trying to sink U-boats. My mother worked at Rochester airport, riveting Stirling bombers. Now I read that BAe, which occupies a site at Rochester airport, is to layoff 3,000 workers as the defence budget is squeezed (Report, 26 September). We all know that defence budget really means war budget. When will one of our politicians say, "if we really want capitalism to survive, let's start another world war"? Spending a mere £1.75bn on Libya won't get all the unemployed kids off the streets.John MunsonMaidstone, Kent

• In an otherwise interesting article on the changing geopolitical relationship between Africa and Libya (Has Africa Lost Libya, 19 September), Knox Chitiyo highlights the historical and economic ties between Africa the Arab states, but rather disingenuously glosses over the fact that Gaddafi was removed from power because he (or, more precisely, his government) had threatened to become a counter-hegemonic force in the region. Although Gaddafi was quick to make his peace with the West after 9/11 and the US occupation of Iraq, abandoning state terrorism and giving up WMDs, his government traditionally cast itself as a regional leader – a model of economic and political development to rival western finance.

The primary strategic concern of the US-UK, France and Italy in removing Gaddafi is not the country's vast oil reserves (although this factor is important), but the Libyan regime's promotion of Islamic finance and local economic development as alternatives to western finance, and the power of the regime's sovereign wealth fund (the Libyan Investment Authority). By promoting and funding development projects on an African level, the Libyan state had threatened to become an example for other peripheral and semi-peripheral states seeking alternatives to the eternal cycle of debt and underdevelopment caused by strict adherence to IMF policies.

Still more vexing for the US was Gaddafi's refusal to pledge allegiance to America's continental security framework Africom, which was designed to secure western control of key resources in Africa, to safeguard western trade and investment, and to reduce Chinese and Russian geostrategic influence. With its modern civilian and military infrastructure now destroyed, however, Libya after Gaddafi is just another failed state, dependent on European and American patronage – although it is far from clear what will follow the new interim government. Dr Daniel WoodleyLondon

• I'm sure that I am not the only one who cringed at the cheap triumphalism on display in Tripoli and Benghazi by Cameron and Sarkozy (Report, 16 September). I am probably not the only one who found it reminiscent of the cheap triumphalism Blair displayed in Kosovo 12 years ago. I am sure that in both cases the cheering crowds had genuine reasons for satisfaction. When I worked in Kosovo at the time as a BBC News producer, the most popular name for newly born boys was Tony. I'm not so sure if David or Nicolas will catch on in Libya.

In both cases the western alliance faced isolated, friendless tin-pot dictators who couldn't turn to anyone for help. In both cases victory was assured by the sheer superiority of air power. However, despite the west's best efforts, Kosovo has become a corrupt dysfunctional statelet that no one cares about. But after all, it has got no oil. In Libya things may turn out differently. The new leadership has assured Libyans and the world that a democratic future based on sharia law is at hand.

I don't want to spoil the party, but having worked extensively in the Middle East for the BBC, as John Simpson's producer, I am very sceptical about it. If Libya achieves a functioning democracy, as we know it, with no reprisals and with the ability to keep extremism and dictatorial tendencies at bay, that will be a first for a country in the region. A more likely scenario is bitter infighting between the disparate groups who took part in the overthrow of Gaddafi for the control of the vast oil revenues. Oil is Libya's blessing and its curse.Oggy BoytchevLondon